+1 good points Tyson. -r
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Tyson Norris <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 in general > >> >> Tasks we'd need to do: >> 1. Setup a repo per runtime. > > Maybe repo per runtime-type, instead of literally each runtime - specifically > names like: openwhisk-action-nodejs, openwhisk-action-java, > openwhisk-action-dockerskeleton, openwhisk-action-php, > openwhisk-action-python, openwhisk-action-swift > (Since each type should share much of the same tests, I think.) > >> 2. Move the runtime build + tests there (testwise I would rather copy and >> own some dependencies than trying to go DRY. The current setup for dependent >> repos needs quite some cleanup and is super hard to maintain for updates in >> the main repo). We can discuss if we need Integration Tests for each of the >> runtimes or if the "unit" tests we have are sufficient here. > > We can DRY it *later* if wanted by releasing mvn artifacts of test base > classes (or all of tests) from core, or something like that, but until that > is implemented, agree that copying is better. > > By “Integration Tests” do you mean to run as part of core tests? I think > something minimal would be good like “test that at least nodejs runtime > works” (e.g. health check), but not “test every runtime as part of core > integration tests" > >> 3. Implement a release process for the runtime images to Dockerhub. >> > > This should be the same as the release process for core images right? > > Thanks > Tyson > > >> The runtimes update fairly rarely so I wouldn't really bother with too >> strict of a versioning there, at least not for the first shot. Process wise >> it does seem straightforwardly doable. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Cheers >> Markus >
